‎Brazil News

 

For predatory litigation, judge condemns lawyer and client: “legal adventure”

Magistrate said that the Judiciary cannot be complicit in the filing of actions with claims that are completely contrary to the factual reality of the parties.

From the Editor

 

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

 

 

Judge  sentenced a lawyer and his client to pay a fine for litigating in bad faith. The amount will be allocated to the defendant bank in the action. The judge said that the case is a "true legal adventure" with a clear intention of illicit enrichment.

 

"The Judiciary cannot condone the filing of actions with claims that are completely contrary to the factual reality of the parties, which seem more based on the popular sayings of 'throw green to harvest ripe' or 'if it sticks,...it sticks!', being The damage to the judicial provision of those who really need to seek help from the Judiciary is evident, as well as the ex adverse party, who has to bear the burden of proving the contracting of a dubious controversy, in addition to bearing unnecessary costs when having to defend themselves in various feats."

 

 

The judge found that there was predatory litigation in the case. 

In the case in question, the author filed a lawsuit against a bank alleging that he sought to obtain a traditional payroll loan, but ended up tricked into carrying out another operation, namely, contracting a credit card limit/withdrawal, known as RMC.

 

When analyzing the files, the judge highlighted that the author spontaneously adhered to the Consignable Margin Reserve proposal in his salaries with the INSS, up to the legal limit.

 

The contracting and provision of credit to the author is an undisputed fact in the case file because the author does not deny the contracting and use of the credit made available. There is no evidence in the file of false advertising, or induction into error, or failure to attached duty to inform.

 

Having overcome the merits, the judge cited the existence of several behaviors that indicate that this was a predatory action. The first point mentioned is the initial petition, which would be vague, generic and without documents supporting the allegations.

 

Another issue raised is that the lawyer sponsoring the case - who only informed his OAB of SP - distributed more than 400 lawsuits in the State of Minas Gerais, mostly against banks and associations of retirees and pensioners.

 

This demonstrates that he is the one who convinces people, especially humble ones, to file this type of action, without explaining to them the possible consequences of their actions and the untruths contained in the process. In this way, it is not fair that only the author, unaware of the legal intricacies, bear the penalties resulting from acts carried out essentially by the patron.

 

The judge also recalled that the lawyer is always the first judge of the case presented to him by the client, going far beyond the good faith and cooperation expected from those who participate in the process (CPC, arts. 5th and 6th).

 

Therefore, he ordered the lawyer and his client to pay jointly a fine to the defendant bank, resulting from the bad faith litigation, at the rate of a minimum wage, and to pay, jointly, compensation for the expenses incurred by the finance company.

 

Furthermore, it determined that OAB/MG, NUMOPED and CIJMG should be officials of the decision to investigate the lawyer's conduct.